UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

reply to post by Paradigm2012


Also... this video

Is a hoax that used this photo.

reply to post by Logical one


Right, the point is if this event actually occurred and there had been witnesses to it. My guess, based on a general understanding of human nature, is that these people would come forward and defend the event. Right now the main belief is that these are HOAXES. It's filtering through the media as such. So IOW those who supposedly witnessed it are liars.

From what I can see no one has come forward. Especially amongst the people who witnessed this and filmed it. I don't mean to repeat this point but it's very important in the psychology of this event. So should I believe that any one of these several people are letting the world call them liars?

It's very telling that there is a silence from those who filmed this. Telling in that this is all BS and never happened like the videos would have us believe...

Ya dig?

reply to post by Paradigm2012


I think I have you figured out Paradigm. I've noticed that sometimes on ATS people will feverishly and whole heartedly cling to a viewpoint that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be invalid. I'm sure you've all seen this before on the boards. Someone saying "the sky is green and i know it is so i dont care what proof you bring me its all made up and fake and only I am right" to me is proof that the person is a part of a government conspiracy.

Think about it folks. What better way could be employed to discredit those of us on ATS than from the inside? When I see any poster ranting and raving, ignoring questions or responses to their posts, being evasive, posting without a source, posting opinion as fact, or generally irrationally believing in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary I get this gut feeling they are a government agent hired to act as irrationally and illogically as possible in the hopes that we (the real users of ATS) will be tarnished for it. Is there any better way to defeat something that frightens you than from the inside? I'd like to think ATS has given the Government more than a few "raised hairs" and I for one can easily see them employing someone like Paradigm to make us all look crazy.

BTW paradigm I am still waiting for you to cease evading me and directly respond to my posts with information relevant to the post to which you are replying.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

 

Did you miss the whole thing about the video frames having a mix of interlaced and progressive frames? This is not possible with one camera and clearly denotes tampering with the videos occurred.

I'd love to see you note that FACT into your emoticon riddled post.

i already know its real,im not go sit up here and be a puppet and change my thoughts.

For 20 to 30 years you all have seen probes from a long distance with bad camera angles,now you all get to see it up close,and its a fake????? Really!

i dont care about the gun that shot at it,that produced the lights,i dont even care about the probe.
i saw a probe being deployed and i saw a probe go back into the air going back in side the triangle,thats what i saw,and thats what im going to believe....PERIOD !
Im the only one on this site that can take a lie detector test and pass on when i saw a triangle,i know what a triangle looks like and i know what and how they operate.

what i saw in 1:02 was clearly TO ME a triangle spacship,its clear as day in the video..period.


Im not going to trick my self or call my eyes a liar,i cant.

reply to post by zorgon
reply to post by Immortalgemini527


If you believe it to be real, it contradicts your triangle only theory .

Like i said before, there has never, and will never be a flying saucer,the only ufo in the history of life will ,and always will be,the triangle.


i wasn’t the only one that saw the triangle, others did to.
look at one viewer and what he drew, he drew the same thing every body didn’t see, the triangle, he drew 3 stars.

I just received this on email from a mailing list I am on, food for thought methinks:

You’re right. I am a CGI expert and my company digital RGB does video and imaging compositing in every area imaginable. The thing I noticed about the video is that the camera isn’t CG…it’s an actual camcorder in my opinion. It’s almost impossible without hours and even days of work to get that type of camera shake. I can get it extremely close, but unable to get exact…nothing like the real thing. I tried it with After Effects and used a math equation to generate the shake…it’s not possible without literally going frame by frame. I would estimate about 85 to over 100 hours of work to produce this. So my question is why…especially for so little pay off. It doesn’t add up. Also, the second angle is the part that really gets me...i’ve put the two side by side on a professional editing system and they time frames are identical…that is possible to generate in CGI but once again….WHY? Also, I believe the audio to be original with the recording. It changes in small amounts due to the camera movement. That can’t be faked…that is virtually impossible and most movie editors can’t create that realism.

Also,
I looked at the videos that want to debunk it and it’s just for getting subscribers…that all…they wouldn’t believe a UFO if they were beamed aboard I think.

Anyway…if you want to see any of the composite work I do, you can use this link….

www.facebook.com...

and here is another for my other company which is a construction company….I give clients a rendered image of their job before it’s complete. Keep in mind these are for potential clients, so the renders are not 100% realistic due to the effort and time it takes to get an image like that, but it’s certainly close and realistic.

www.facebook.com...

From another view Doug Cantrell wrote:

While I am still not 100% convinced that three of the four videos are not hoaxes (one definitely is, IMO), and I would admit that Benjamin Radford attempts to lay out a logical argument, I also feel the need to point out that Mr. Radford's logic is flawed. All of his arguments contain a common logical fallacy -- circular reasoning -- in which one's assumptions are used as part of the logical argument.

1. Anonymity is a red flag. Maybe, but that does not make it a hoax. Radford assumes a videographer would want fame and fortune. I, on the other hand might assume anyone videoing such an event would want to protect their identity at all costs, for fear of unwanted public scrutiny, government scrutiny or any other form of unwanted attention. Those are two different assumptions -- and neither can be used as part of the logical argument, since the assumption is that which must be proven. To use the assumption as part of the argument leads to a faulty conclusion. Both assumptions could be
"proven." And that leads to a logical paradox -- a rational impossibility.

2. Likewise, the assumption that no one else besides the videographers saw the lights is used as part of the argument. How can one be sure the assumption is correct? Seth Shostak loves to use this logical fallacy, "If there were intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms existing, we would have heard from them by now." The implication, of course, is that the lack
of evidence found by one investigator must mean that the evidence does not exist.

3. The nature of light -- there is an unstated, but inferred, assumption that the light emitted by the UFO must behave the same way that normal light does. Who says it was light as we define it? Again the assumption is used in the argument.

4. The small size of the ship. This is my favorite. This one has both barrels loaded -- a double-barreled assumption used as an argument. First, who says the relatively tiny craft flew across the universe? Second, even if it did, who says a tiny craft could not do this?

I am not saying Radford is wrong. I am just pointing out that he has failed to make a sound logical argument.

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


So when your eyes read a science fiction book do you believe it to be real because your eyes have seen it? That sort of blind faith in what you see is why so many people are so easily led astray. The videos have been shown to be a HOAX.

Your faith in this HOAX is misplaced. Surely you want to believe but to believe in anything without investigation is faith not science. Your desire to believe is interfering with your ability to rationalize and that can be a very dangerous thing for your own mental state.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

 

So when your eyes read a science fiction book do you believe it to be real because your eyes have seen it? That sort of blind faith in what you see is why so many people are so easily led astray. The videos have been shown to be a HOAX.

Your faith in this HOAX is misplaced. Surely you want to believe but to believe in anything without investigation is faith not science. Your desire to believe is interfering with your ability to rationalize and that can be a very dangerous thing for your own mental state.

Then its a hoax,so be it.

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
I just received this on email from a mailing list I am on, food for thought methinks:


3. The nature of light -- there is an unstated, but inferred, assumption that the light emitted by the UFO must behave the same way that normal light does. Who says it was light as we define it? Again the assumption is used in the argument.


I am not saying Radford is wrong. I am just pointing out that he has failed to make a sound logical argument.

edit on 9/2/11 by Hongkongphooey because: (no reason given)

Ok so it is not logical to ask where the other witnesses are but it is logical to say that light may not be light as we know it because they are aliens? I'd say thats one statement that would send Spock's "thats illogical" eyebrow shooting right off his face.

Its not logical to suggest science fiction as an explanation for a real world event.

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
I just received this on email from a mailing list I am on, food for thought methinks:
...
The thing I noticed about the video is that the camera isn’t CG…it’s an actual camcorder in my opinion. It’s almost impossible without hours and even days of work to get that type of camera shake. I can get it extremely close, but unable to get exact…nothing like the real thing.

Pure bunk.

Video tutorials on simulating camera shake in After Effects.

My Apple Motion (comes with Final Cut) has a filter with several options and settings to simulate the shake of a hand-held camera.

Additionally, the links to "example work" shows very basic material, and not demonstrative of high-end production work.

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
HERE IS ALL THE EVIDENCE OF A HOAX SO FAR:

1. Video #1 has tiled edges for about 10 seconds. (could be in auto mode) when they upload the video

2. nobody is talking

WOW!

HERE IS ALL THE EVIDENCE OF NOT BEING A HOAX SO FAR:

reply to post by Logical one


The facts are that the audio has been tampered with as well as the video being heavily edited. The audio discrepancies along with the interlaced and progressive frames mixed together is all the evidence anyone needs to see that two videos were spliced into one and further manipulated beyond that. To insist otherwise is fruitless and irrational. Now you factor in the prospective issues and the camera shake issues and the nails are in the coffin on this HOAX.

I am curious why it is that so many people will say NASA photoshopping something is a sign that it is a deception and invalid evidence but these HOAXERS doing the very same thing isn't immediately rebuked as a HOAX and invalid evidence. If NASA had released this video and these same flaws had come to light not one person on this thread would be clinging to the belief that the videos were real.

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
To me im still convinced this is a viral HOAX. I have seen more then enough error in these videos to come to such a conclusion. With every hoax there will be people not privy to the facts. This is what gives it such momentum. After all this staged event is powerful in so many ways with religious undertones merged with ufology together. I can imagine many people feel inspired by this footage, they will defend it vigorously to the end. I went in to this thing as neutral as i could but the (certain hoax website) involvement is hard to ignore. It stinks, many people are not aware of spammer ******* ***** (certain hoax website) and it's history of hoaxes. For this to be authentic it has far too many hoax traits even by coincidence I see that being impossible.

My points are indexed here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am still interested in this and would love to be wrong but I have yet to see that happen. As far as I am concerned nobody has led any credence to this rather shown it as a sham the more.

edit on 2-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

It sort of begs the question, how do you make a hoax video wthout errors doesn't it. As for the religious aspect, you don't actually need to be religious to make something of it, if say the historical Holy Grail was hidden underneath the dome, as some might think, and that some people have a different point of view as to what the Holy Grail actually is. Im not even sure what the hoax traits might be since this is a fairly novel video, to all accounts. Still then, if a hoax there are some things to account for.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
I just received this on email from a mailing list I am on, food for thought methinks:
...
The thing I noticed about the video is that the camera isn’t CG…it’s an actual camcorder in my opinion. It’s almost impossible without hours and even days of work to get that type of camera shake. I can get it extremely close, but unable to get exact…nothing like the real thing.

Pure bunk.

Video tutorials on simulating camera shake in After Effects.

My Apple Motion (comes with Final Cut) has a filter with several options and settings to simulate the shake of a hand-held camera.

Additionally, the links to "example work" shows very basic material, and not demonstrative of high-end production work.

edit on 9-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

I am not a CGI expert by any means, I was just posting what a 'self procalimed' CGI expert claimed! If you don't rate his work or opinions, thats not a problem. Thought it might throw some light on the matter, it seems I was wrong My apologies!

reply to post by PhotonEffect


oh i know...lol

its not really about getting at the truth here on ats anyways, its about the favoritism of the clan.

what i get a chuckle about is how the clansmen can openly arrogantly bash anyone they choose, but if anyone outside their circle bashes back the mods start threatening and deleting points.

the overlord proved beyond the shadow of a doubt the 4th video is real, when he loaded this cut and it exposed what was inside the light. thanx overlord

reply to post by anumohi


What are you seeing there in the light, Paradigm2010?

Originally posted by anumohi
the overlord proved beyond the shadow of a doubt the 4th video is real

No I didn't, and never said it was anything more than interesting, and the best of the four.

The fourth video appears to be a response to all the critiques of the other videos here on ATS.

A light flash of the apparent magnitude of what is seen in the 4th video should illuminate more than the already illuminated area, plus a few scant areas of new light. Additionally, the artificial motion blur at the end is a dead giveaway.

Hoax.

Originally posted by anumohi
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

oh i know...lol

its not really about getting at the truth here on ats anyways, its about the favoritism of the clan.

what i get a chuckle about is how the clansmen can openly arrogantly bash anyone they choose, but if anyone outside their circle bashes back the mods start threatening and deleting points.

Well... I think it is about getting to the truth here, and I'm not too sure what you're getting at with the clansmen thing, to be honest...

I was just wondering if you'd feel the need to defend yourself if someone called you and your UFO story complete bunk.

I have a question for Skeptical Overlord.

Israel uses PAL which is 25 frames per second. It doesn't prove that these were shot with a PAL camcorder of course. If they were shot in PAL wouldn't they need to be converted to NTSC (29.9 FPS) to be viewed on YT by all of us with NTSC monitors? Is it possible the interpolation (3:2 pulldown) could cause some of the mirroring or artifacts? If motion or shake is happening and frames are added it seems like this could have an unnatural effect. Your thoughts?